Peter Cairns
-
Posts
1,460 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Peter Cairns
-
-
handihoc,
Turns up what.....
Peter.
-
Steve,
As I was talking about much larger Meta-tiles (MT) than you (200mx200m) building in to 2kmx2km maps of 100 MT's could this not form part of a campaign system.
You could build a 1kmx 30km MT map based on MT tiles , but it would only draw the bit you needed and record it. That would let you fight your way up a corridor or do a long series of battles.
You would need to have a cut off system so that it only showed so much at any one time, but it might be a way to tie in the QB system with the campaign System.
You could create large scale sector maps and deploy forces, with the MT's only being drawn and tagged in place as units came in to contact. If two units met near a series of tiles the System would randomly select them in the right terrain type, but that would then be fixed in place for the rest of the campaign.
Just a thought or two.
Peter.
-
-
Steve,
I think I was looking at something larger as I swa tiles more as mini maps. If you went for a roughly 2kmx2km map of 100 (10x10)tiles then each would in theory be 25x25 8x8each or 200mx200m for a tile.
With 625 grid boxes to a 200m tile then in theory the tag could be something like a 625 didgit number simply made up of a number from 0 to 9 for each 8x8 scale part, 0 could be clear, 1 scrub etc.
This would let people do two things. They could choose from Forest or whatever to get a match.
Alternatively you could make your own 200mx200m Tiles and then ask it to search for the best fits to it's tags to create a map that was similar to your key tiles.
You would then assemble your 2kmx2km map and run the routine to blend the edges.
It's not quite the same as you a suggesting and probably more a map builder than a QB system.
Peter.
-
Steve,
So if we had a 20x 20 grid to create a 2km x2km map made up of 200 tiles you could specify a set height in each box, and the system could create an overall mesh 2kmx2km.
You would then choose Town, City, Forest, Farmland or whatever for each box and the system would choose random tiles from a set library to lay on the grid.
That sounds a pretty good system to me.
You mentioned the routine to deal with the generic issue.
Could you use something that sort of worked like anti aliasing where once the tiles were laid it aligned the edges by taking the average of the terrain in something like a 10m radius.
If two roads didn't match up it would either move both or one till they met, with say the one with the longest straight moving least.
I still feel that letting people design their own tiles and having a library would be the best way to go, especially if any tile could be "tweaked" to match any other by blending the edges and laid on a random mesh.
My initial ideas were probably to literally based on recreating board game tiles and not taking enough account of what computers can do in terms of generating a unique piece of terrain.
I doubt it would be that difficult to have each tile saved to let it be recognised for it's terrain content as a short cut without having to look through page after page of peoples tiles or having to download lots of model tiles.
Peter.
[ April 14, 2008, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]
-
Steve,
Read through the old thread and the difficult issue for me is height and geometry.
I'll start with some general points on how it might work.
In Squad leader the key was the edges of maps, where a road crossed something like 10 hexes down on a 30 hex board so you could turn boards and link the right to left etc, so that the road ran from one side to the other.
In theory you could do that for CMx2 with templates of say 100m x 100m tiles with a standard edge which you could fill in and then save.
You could also download these from other players or BFC.
It could also be that when saved the file gave it a code that detailed how much of each terrain type it had in it.
That would mean that if you selected a "forest" scenario it selected tiles that were high in forest type terrain etc.
You could also have a system where you had a 10x10 grid and you clicked on a broad type for each square and it filled each box with a 100m x100m tile of that type.
Now the problems.
With common edges that mean the roads all exit at the same point the overall effect of a large grid could well appear symetrical.
SL got by this by having a turn just after the exit/entry point on some maps or even a dead end. Another option would be to have a selection of edges running to about 16 with each tile being started with any four, including four the same.
However for me the biggest issue to overcome is tile height, SL tiles were effectively 2D while CMx2 is 3D.
How you get round that without making the 16 edges all follow a set of heights as well as terrain types I don't know.
Would it be possible to have a system that let you set the height of the main tiles in the 10x10 grid but kept the relative height of the edges the same?
For example lets say an edge has 10 parts at heights 3,4,4,5,4,3,4,3,2,3. that would join to an edge that was also at heights 3,4,4,5,4,3,4,3,2,3. But if the joining tile was set a +10 then the edge would vary to 13,14,14,15,14,13,14,13,12,13.
I think the way forward would be to decide the size of the grids, both for the overall map and for the individual tiles, and to come up with a solution to the edge issue for terrain and particularly height and then let modellers do the rest beyond a limited pallet provided by BFC.
Peter.
-
MikeyD,
But looked at the other way 9 years is almost exactly 3,300 days so that is only 1 a day, and how many of the 3,300 were to hostile ground fire as opposed to mechanical failure, collision or even destroyed on the ground.
Divide 3,300 in to 7 million hours and you get one lost every 2,000 flying hours. Working a 40 hr week with two weeks holiday you'd have a survival time of a year.
Peter.
-
Steve,
I can understand the logic of what you are saying, but what about a compromise of something like a cut scene which shows an animation of the drop to the deployed positions before the game starts, a bit like in the Market garden scenario in Battlefield 1942 ( okay, it is pretty silly I'll admit, but so's the whole series).
It would add to feel/immersion without the complications of LOS/LOF etc. What you might need to alter is readiness, fatigue, command or moral to reflect the confusion but the visuals would be before the game starts.
You could also block the "landing" side from having any pre planning or only a very restricted ability to do so.
Just a thought, which I do have occasionally.
Peter.
-
Steve,
Good post and pretty much just updates us on what we knew, still good to have it.
With regards to the UI, as you know I have my own ideas about that but as it's a major change I think it might be something to let the forum have a good discussion of.
I am sure you know who wouldn't get a consensus and some will condemn anything that isn't their answer but I think their is a lot of good ideas out there.
Personally, as a Mac user I favour it being as stripped down as possible more head up like a fighter than a Jumbo cockpit with dials and switches everywhere.
I am also more for balancing Fire/Cover/Movement than individual commands but I suspect that's a non starter as for most people "run" or "cover" is just far more intuitive and user friendly , which is really what you want from a UI.
Peter.
-
Steve,
While I am fully behind what you have said, it does raise a couple of issues that i would welcome your opinion on, particularly as they may come up in future games or modules.
The first is; Could there not be certain circumstances where the "Russian" model works better or as well as the US/western one.
I remember reading about soviet doctrine of disembarking at 200-300m and advancing with support in assault.
It might be a dodgy tactic, but in those circumstances would the western organisation really give much better results, after all advancing across open ground is advancing across open ground.
Secondly if we had a force like the New Iraqi Army where they adopted US training and organisation, but weren't up to it for any number of reasons, could they actually be at a disadvantage.
I possible case of this might be the performance of the ARVN v the NVA, where the one which followed "our" model didn't have the quality or motivation of the one using "theirs", or where because of relatively poor quality on the part of each the more rigid structure worked when people given flexibility couldn't handle it.
I suppose what i am getting at is a bit like an F-15 being better than a F-16, but it being a different story if it's a Saudi F-15 and an Israeli F-16.
Peter.
-
The problem with "Get LOF at this point" is that you are ordering people to stop when they see something that you know is there but they don't.
That could be a bit unrealistic.
Peter.
-
I think after Normandy there are some obvious "Western" modules before going "East".
If the launch Normandy game is just US v German and named after one of the US beaches ( although covering a wider area than just the beach) or Patton's breakout from Normandy, CM:OC, Operation Cobra.
The obvious follow on would be the allies, with British, Free French and Canadians in the push to Le Havre.
After that the obvious add on's are the big operations, Market Garden, Husky, Shingle and Wacht am Rhein.
Peter.
-
I think France 1940 has the potential to be a good module down the road but I think it would be better to cover the big US actions first to maximise sales and then have Poland,Ffinland and France 40 as niche additions.
Peter.
-
I decided to look at holiday homes in Normandy to look at stone....
It tends to be cream to light brown and square often flint. That has a real impact of getting things right, as here in Scotland because of the rock and the ice age the stone in walls is grey and rounded.
It might seem odd but different coloured walls in buildings in different modules may actually be a good feature to have CMx WW2.
Peter.
-
Well I've really only had one clash with Mr Dorosh when I made some what I thought were honest opinions on ASL, which I just never took too because for me for all the quality of the maps and counters and other visuals I thought it was a rather clumsy design.
For that I got both barrels which included being called arrogant for daring to question a game with such huge support.
So I just ignored it.....
Peter.
-
John Kettler,
The Neolithic looking one isn't in Normandy but I was trying to find some good examples of what real European "walling" is like so i put it in. The point was that it is a ubiquitous feature that if done well can really enhance the game.
Oh and at least one of the poplar pictures is in Italy, but again it's about adding some detail that is recognisably "French" as opposed to what to an extent we got it CMBO which was just a Map type rendition with Broadleaf, Pine and Scrub, Wall, Track and Road.
Peter.
-
Could I put in a bit about what we call dry stone dykes ( and no that's not one of Dorosh's dates).
In CMBO etc we had walls but they were pretty uniform being about 4 ft high and 2 ft wide.
In reality they were fairly rough and vary from between 3ft and 7 ft ( some even higher) and can be anything from under 1 ft to 2 ft thick.
They often have a finished rounded top but not always and the state of repair varies dropping and rising in height as the go across fields and along roads.
What adds to this is that they can often act as a reinforcing wall either holding back earth or with the ground at different heights on either side.
They also form culverts ( drains under roads) and the sides of bridges.
Here are some examples.
Doing these well really is a must for Normandy. Getting them right so that they can enhance map design would be excellent.
To be honest good walling is probably in terms of immersion better than any number of motorcycles or horses.
Oh and as it's Normandy can I add on so are Poplars, which really should be a must especially along the sides of roads......
]http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/safe/images/image28.jpg
Peter.
[ April 15, 2008, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]
-
dalem,
Now if we have full multi-play by the time we get CMx2 Normandy one player can take the Shermans and four others, the three rifle platoons plus command and support.
Now that would really show what the new game could do.
Peter.
-
Welcome aboard, check your sanity at the front desk.....You may get it back when you leave.
Peter.
-
gibsonm,
Fair enough, I just can't remember it as I haven't been able to play CMBO since I switched to OSX.
Any chance of some screen shots to jog my memory,
Indeed anyone who has a candidate scenario from CMBO post some shots.
Something that would make a good CMx2 Normandy demo scenario as a showcase for the game to old CMBO players.
Peter.
-
gibsonm,
Is that the one where the Panther turns up near the end?
If it is I thought it might be a bit big given that as I recall it had over a company on both sides.
Peter.
-
And I so wanted to put flamethrowers in the sidecars..... because you know it was technically possible.
Peter.
-
gibsonm,
Is that the start scenario with the 2 Sherman's moving up the road and the US Infantry company in the woods to the right meeting the German platoon with two PzIV,s.
Peter.
-
I think the more interesting thing would be for BF to include a remodelling of one of the smaller "Normandy" scenarios from CMBO in CMx2 Normandy.
It would probably be a platoon level scenario but I'd hope we could find at least one which could be converted across. that way we could see the differences between the two and make an assessment.
It would never be a direct comparison because of differences in game play and particularly the scenario scripting but it would be interesting and fun.
Any scenario suggestions people, something small with Shermans.
Peter.
![]http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/safe/images/image28.jpg](http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/safe/images/image28.jpg%5B/img){kind=link}
Where we're headed from here... a quick glance
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Steve,
Just a thought but how about this.
Would it be possible at some stage to have a split where the core units and their objectives were set by the player while the attached units and objectives were AI controlled.
Alternatively attached " supporting" units could be linked to core units so that it would support the core units mission. Thus an M1 platoon could be under AI control but for the scenario would shadow the 1st infantry platoon in whatever task it was given.
The player would control the core Inf platoon but the AI the M1's in support.
I know the hope was to at some point be able to have more than one player on each side so this could fit in with that. It would also allow the AI to take over if someone dropped out.
Peter.